_ _    _ _____  ___   __                       
 __      _(_) | _(_)___ / ( _ ) / /_   ___ ___  _ __ ___  
 \ \ /\ / / | |/ / | |_ \ / _ \| '_ \ / __/ _ \| '_ ` _ \ 
  \ V  V /| |   <| |___) | (_) | (_) | (_| (_) | | | | | |
   \_/\_/ |_|_|\_\_|____/ \___/ \___(_)___\___/|_| |_| |_|

File talk:Male genitalia reworked.jpg

In today's world, File talk:Male genitalia reworked.jpg is an issue that continues to gain relevance in society. File talk:Male genitalia reworked.jpg has long captured the interest of people of all ages and cultural backgrounds. Whether for its impressive technological advances, its controversial political decisions or its innovative artistic proposals, File talk:Male genitalia reworked.jpg never ceases to surprise and generate debate. Over the years, File talk:Male genitalia reworked.jpg has been a recurring topic in the media and has sparked the interest of researchers and academics from various disciplines. In this article, we will explore different aspects of File talk:Male genitalia reworked.jpg, analyzing its influence today and the possible repercussions it could have in the future.

In the Portuguese key, please someone change "Epiderme" to "Epidídimos". 189.78.212.4 (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it shaved?

Why is it shaved? Unshaved genitalia would be more representative of what is normal. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

But also more obscuring of any annotations 81.108.7.135 (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Errors, misleading issues

I have a couple of issues with this picture. First off, the testis to epididymis size ratio is MUCH, MUCH too large. The picture is downright misleading, which goes against it's very purpose (to educate, NOT to mislead). Secondly, the corpora cavernosa/corpus spongiosum have the same issue... the corpora cavernosa are way too small, as is the corpus spongiosum (plus their extent is not accurately represented). The caption is also not entirely clear/correct, the view isn't an "upper" view (whatever that means...), it's a ventral view. If anything, it's a bottom view. I also have a bunch of criticisms of other details, but those are my main issues. My point is that the picture isn't anatomically correct, and should either be called a schema, or corrected.--TAW (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia